NNNNOOOOOO! Not the haunted forest! You and Dave both had planes with a three week stay in the tree! I was not expecting that! That was cool video my friend! And good on you for your perseverance and ingenuity!! MACH 10 brother!!
Yeah! The 2nd worst place to flat spin over (1st place being the Gator Pond). Mine was stuck from June 25 to July 15. Several months before Dave’s phantom. The sad part is, my F-18 Blue Angel crash (#1, the tree one) happened on June 30, a mere 5 days after DarkStar was stuck. And so, for around 90 minutes, I had 2 jets stuck in 2 separate trees, one being my dream plane (and most expensive plane). Having had that occur, that week became known as “hell week” for my RC planes, and I was pretty close to hanging it up for a while. But, my love of flight brought me back, and I was flying again on July 4th with my F-16 70mm Thunderbird. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@AerospaceMatt I've have quit myself after a bad crash that wasn't my fault! (for 10 years)! But the love brought me back! Glad all you lost was a battery! Gator pond....... Holy cow!! Guess that was one you had to forget. Glad you're back on the horse brother.
@@redbeardreviewsrc Fortunatley, it DIDNT go into the gator pond. That was the only worse outcome than what actually ended up happening. Yup! Took me a while to work up the nerve to fly #2, but it did fly, and fortunately that one ended up on the ground.
If you adjusted the thrust angle and put you COG just a little forward, this bird would fly nicely. Rear wing aircraft generally need a forward COG to counter the rear bias centre of inertia
You are correct. However, I couldn’t put the battery any more forward because of the placement of the landing gear. It’s placement was like the F-18, where the wheels are so far back it’s hard to rotate and the nose gear is so far forward. Also the thrust angle was a significant issue. With the thrust being so low and so far back it really wasn’t going to work. Maybe I’ll make another one in the future with improvements in mind.
@@AerospaceMatt This weekend gone I built and flew my own version of the darkstar (TG Maverick, not the SR-72), though I used the prop in slot or parkjet method to build. Raising the thrust line definitely helped keep her straight. Issue I had was not enough elevator but that'll be fixed. Really slippery design when you get it going!
@@BuildYourOwnRC Yes, my design was a TGM DarkStar and not SR-72 as well, and on my first flight it did feel slippery. Prop in slot sounds like it worked way better than underslung EDFs. How was your stability? Did it want to over correct on the roll axis?
That's a fairly common issue with EDF planes, especially long aspect-ratio (fuselage to wing) designs like F-104 Stafighters. OP is correct, however, and the only way to really deal with the lack of rotation is to "jack up" the nosegear, sometimes quite a lot. It may not look the most scale, but it solves the problem, 99% of the time. Really beautiful build, though! HTH@@AerospaceMatt
Thanks! I’m planning on building another with a more forward CG using nose weight and a gyro for pitch stability. I also think I made the rudders too small but I was using still frames from the movie from odd angles as the basis for my design.
I had the same problem with my edf space shuttle maybe you could put canards on it like at with the ft viggen. And angle the canards for upwards elevator and then you can put the cg foward so it is more stable.
Yeah, that idea probably would’ve worked. The thing is, the DarkStar doesn’t have canards! I don’t think it’s CG, but the design of the plane causing it to pitch up. It would do less if I put the battery forward, but then my fear was it might not take off!
Well, the whole purpose for the project was for me to make the design fly, so I’d have to say yes. Now, I COULD make clear plastic canards so that it looks scale but aerodynamically it’s better behaving. I don’t think there is such a thing as an EDF that turns the opposite way. If they do have them, I’ve never seen one. The reason is quite simple: EDFs don’t produce torque like props do. The vranes at the back counteract any sort of torque that the fan may produce, so the thrust comes out evenly distributed. The main problem with this design is that the center of thrust is about an inch below the airframe’s centerline. That could be compensated for in the full scale, but it’s much harder to work around in RC.
Yeah the CG calculator I used was a little ambiguous. I want to revisit this in the near future. On that one I’d make the stabilizers larger, move battery a little more forward, play with the thrust angle, and make a small chuck glide model to identify the proper CG.
Well, I’d need to get a gyro that’s set for “elevon” control. And, I’d have to go to the Mojave Desert to try it, because I don’t want another tree encounter!
I bought them. They are 64mm EDFs. Motor: www.horizonhobby.com/product/brushless-motor-2840-2200kv-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-64mm-edf/EFL01192.html EDF fan unit: www.horizonhobby.com/product/ducted-fan-unit-11--blade-64mm-edf/EFL9790.html
@@AerospaceMatt Yes, They were made for speed and altitude, The Starfighter was supposed to be a high altitude interceptor but then Lockheed redesigned it to a multi-role fighter which was a really deadly move for costumers.
@@AerospaceMatt I thought it's not that bad if you expand its wingspan, DarkStar itself is a redesign of the real SR-72 and I think it would be more beautiful with longer wings too.
Well, the whole point was to try to make the design fly as is. If I’d had a gyro in it, it would’ve almost certainly worked (it actually did on the first flight but I accidentally deleted over 50% of the clip showing it flying.)
That deleted part... please don't tell you did what he did on the movie... pushing it to Mach 10.5 or 11 . At least it didn't go fireball then crash in Alaska ( f****!! that's spoiler alert ) 🤦♂
It’s okay, most people watching this have seen the movie. No, I’m still kicking myself for accidentally deleting that part, it was flying actually pretty- ... er... it was flying! At least better than the 2nd plane did.
There are actually many differences between the fictional “X-72” DarkStar and the very real SR-72 “Son of Blackbird”. They have almost identical planforms (silhouette as viewed from the top or bottom) back to the empennage where the trailing edge of the wing differs. That is the end of the similarities. DarkStar is manned, and achieves speed in excess of Mach 10 through a dual mode SCRAMJET. SR-72 is unmanned, and allegedly capable of Mach 6 using a dual mode RAMJET. Not as powerful as a SCRAMJET but definitely higher speed as a result of separating the two engines instead of building a combined hybrid like on SR-71. The final obvious and visible difference is the DarkStar has 2 vertical stabilators that are all moving like on SR-71, and are also canted inward. SR-72 Son of Blackbird has one large traditional vertical stabilizer/rudder. It’s easy to mistake one jet for another and the differences are like that of the F-15C to the F-15E.
Well, the Wright Brothers had many failures before success. I would not give up on this project. The engines could be moved forward which would change the torque/thrust location and possibly bring more stability to it. Examples are the B-1A in testing had close to the same issue until they move the engines forward. The CG calculator is yet another misguided brainchild that is not 100% always correct. It does not account for many aspects of building materials. Yes I do not feel the CG is correct in this scratch build design. I feel you can make it work. Dare to experiment and have fun doing it. At the very least give it more effort, you may end up with an award-winning design.
I appreciate your comment and insight. You know, I probably could’ve put the EDFs closer to the intake, but not by much. An inch at most. I would like to try again, but this project has taken WAY too much time both to complete and get out to the viewers (I’ve been working on it since June!) I might try again at some point in the future, but I have several projects that have had to be put on hold while I try to get DarkStar to work. And yeah, I guess the best CG calculator is real life testing, but I still believe the aircraft design is inherently unstable. Maybe if I got a gyro it’d be better.
@@AerospaceMatt I concur and also agree with Jeff in LA . The SR-71 BlackBird was a skunkworks bird as well and lets just say the Gen 1 of Hypersonic flight , Been out of the military for 15 years and still can not talk about what I know.
Isn’t Hypersonic Mach 5 plus? I thought the SR-71 could only go Mach 3.3. Wow, it’s cool that you know things that are [Redacted]. My grandpa worked for Boeing and did secret stuff that he couldn’t talk about either. All I know for sure is he worked on the Space Shuttle robotic arm. Also, the thing I found fascinating about the film was that they tested DarkStar at the Mojave Desert, but in real life they would’ve tested it at Groom Lake.
It is possible I may have met your grandpa, There is many things that happens we are not allowed to discuss. The national security depends on the dedication of the men and women who serve past, present and beyond. Darkstar is but one of many projects that may or maynot be a reality. The B-2 bomber force was a huge surprise to our adversaries. Yet it is but a very small example of what our military is capable of. What will our next generation be able to do to keep our country safe?
I want to thank you for your service. It is my goal in life to become a full scale test pilot, and fly the next generation technology demonstrator. I would love to fly something at high altitude, "where no lark, or even eagle flew"
I know the quote. It DID fly (the first one with the partially deleted video) I think the stabilizers were too small as well as the thrust line being so far back and below the wing. Probably could’ve used a bit of nose weight as well.
This one in the video didn’t fly too well. Definitely looking into making a new one with more stability. If that one works, then I’ll make a video about how to build one!
NNNNOOOOOO! Not the haunted forest! You and Dave both had planes with a three week stay in the tree! I was not expecting that! That was cool video my friend! And good on you for your perseverance and ingenuity!! MACH 10 brother!!
Yeah! The 2nd worst place to flat spin over (1st place being the Gator Pond). Mine was stuck from June 25 to July 15. Several months before Dave’s phantom. The sad part is, my F-18 Blue Angel crash (#1, the tree one) happened on June 30, a mere 5 days after DarkStar was stuck. And so, for around 90 minutes, I had 2 jets stuck in 2 separate trees, one being my dream plane (and most expensive plane). Having had that occur, that week became known as “hell week” for my RC planes, and I was pretty close to hanging it up for a while. But, my love of flight brought me back, and I was flying again on July 4th with my F-16 70mm Thunderbird. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@AerospaceMatt I've have quit myself after a bad crash that wasn't my fault! (for 10 years)! But the love brought me back! Glad all you lost was a battery! Gator pond....... Holy cow!! Guess that was one you had to forget. Glad you're back on the horse brother.
@@redbeardreviewsrc Fortunatley, it DIDNT go into the gator pond. That was the only worse outcome than what actually ended up happening. Yup! Took me a while to work up the nerve to fly #2, but it did fly, and fortunately that one ended up on the ground.
@@AerospaceMatt It came out sweet! She's gonna looks great in the hanger!
Thanks! She sure will!
I bet the thrust angle was a big reason for the undesirable flight characteristics...still a cool project: well done, my man!
Thanks! Yeah, I concur. Not all designs can work (that’s because it’s from a movie!!)
If you adjusted the thrust angle and put you COG just a little forward, this bird would fly nicely. Rear wing aircraft generally need a forward COG to counter the rear bias centre of inertia
You are correct. However, I couldn’t put the battery any more forward because of the placement of the landing gear. It’s placement was like the F-18, where the wheels are so far back it’s hard to rotate and the nose gear is so far forward. Also the thrust angle was a significant issue. With the thrust being so low and so far back it really wasn’t going to work. Maybe I’ll make another one in the future with improvements in mind.
@@AerospaceMatt This weekend gone I built and flew my own version of the darkstar (TG Maverick, not the SR-72), though I used the prop in slot or parkjet method to build. Raising the thrust line definitely helped keep her straight. Issue I had was not enough elevator but that'll be fixed. Really slippery design when you get it going!
@@BuildYourOwnRC Yes, my design was a TGM DarkStar and not SR-72 as well, and on my first flight it did feel slippery. Prop in slot sounds like it worked way better than underslung EDFs. How was your stability? Did it want to over correct on the roll axis?
That's a fairly common issue with EDF planes, especially long aspect-ratio (fuselage to wing) designs like F-104 Stafighters. OP is correct, however, and the only way to really deal with the lack of rotation is to "jack up" the nosegear, sometimes quite a lot. It may not look the most scale, but it solves the problem, 99% of the time. Really beautiful build, though! HTH@@AerospaceMatt
Great effort and good explanation on why it didn't work. Though it held together. Maybe it needs a tail like a kite to make it stable. =)
Thanks! I’m planning on building another with a more forward CG using nose weight and a gyro for pitch stability. I also think I made the rudders too small but I was using still frames from the movie from odd angles as the basis for my design.
I had the same problem with my edf space shuttle maybe you could put canards on it like at with the ft viggen. And angle the canards for upwards elevator and then you can put the cg foward so it is more stable.
Yeah, that idea probably would’ve worked. The thing is, the DarkStar doesn’t have canards! I don’t think it’s CG, but the design of the plane causing it to pitch up. It would do less if I put the battery forward, but then my fear was it might not take off!
@@AerospaceMatt but does it have to look scale its only a model an have you put counter rotating edfs inside of it?
Well, the whole purpose for the project was for me to make the design fly, so I’d have to say yes. Now, I COULD make clear plastic canards so that it looks scale but aerodynamically it’s better behaving. I don’t think there is such a thing as an EDF that turns the opposite way. If they do have them, I’ve never seen one. The reason is quite simple: EDFs don’t produce torque like props do. The vranes at the back counteract any sort of torque that the fan may produce, so the thrust comes out evenly distributed. The main problem with this design is that the center of thrust is about an inch below the airframe’s centerline. That could be compensated for in the full scale, but it’s much harder to work around in RC.
@@AerospaceMatt Can you see my last message with the links?
No, I can't see it. It's probably in the "held for review" section of the youtube studio app. I'll check those links out when I get home from work.
Great effort! Nice looking plane, Matt. Impressive. Press on, my friend. 🙃
Thanks!
At least it achieved flight, it is so difficult to know where the CG should be when designing a prototype like that.
Yeah the CG calculator I used was a little ambiguous. I want to revisit this in the near future. On that one I’d make the stabilizers larger, move battery a little more forward, play with the thrust angle, and make a small chuck glide model to identify the proper CG.
Matt nice looking plane, looked more of a thrust vs drag-balance issue, zoom spin zoom fun, Jeff in LA USA
Yeah, I think the thrust line being an inch below the centerline of the aircraft didn’t help either. Thanks for watching!
what a handsome fellow
Very NIIIIIIIIIIIICE design! You are certainly talented. Slap a gyro in that bad boy and THEN see what happens! 😎👍
Well, I’d need to get a gyro that’s set for “elevon” control. And, I’d have to go to the Mojave Desert to try it, because I don’t want another tree encounter!
Get a little Matek board and an aio fpv camera and send it
The only camera I have like that is a RunCam 2. I guess that would work.
Thank you for the great video. Did you build the dark star's engine yourself? Or did you buy it? If you did, please leave a link.
I bought them. They are 64mm EDFs.
Motor: www.horizonhobby.com/product/brushless-motor-2840-2200kv-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-64mm-edf/EFL01192.html
EDF fan unit: www.horizonhobby.com/product/ducted-fan-unit-11--blade-64mm-edf/EFL9790.html
@@AerospaceMatt thanks you. Your service
It reminds me of F-104, Both of them are short wingspan and unstable.
And both of them were meant to go faster than anything before them!
@@AerospaceMatt Yes, They were made for speed and altitude, The Starfighter was supposed to be a high altitude interceptor but then Lockheed redesigned it to a multi-role fighter which was a really deadly move for costumers.
@@AerospaceMatt I thought it's not that bad if you expand its wingspan, DarkStar itself is a redesign of the real SR-72 and I think it would be more beautiful with longer wings too.
Well, the whole point was to try to make the design fly as is. If I’d had a gyro in it, it would’ve almost certainly worked (it actually did on the first flight but I accidentally deleted over 50% of the clip showing it flying.)
@@AerospaceMatt Keep try it, Even failures are sweet in this way for making RC planes.
Let's put a flight controller...it will do the trick. An F4 with Inav and will fly nice.
Yeah, definitely needed a flight controller. Not necessarily INAV but some sort of active flight stability.
That deleted part... please don't tell you did what he did on the movie... pushing it to Mach 10.5 or 11 . At least it didn't go fireball then crash in Alaska ( f****!! that's spoiler alert ) 🤦♂
It’s okay, most people watching this have seen the movie. No, I’m still kicking myself for accidentally deleting that part, it was flying actually pretty- ... er... it was flying! At least better than the 2nd plane did.
What, the darkstar is the SR-72 basically
There are actually many differences between the fictional “X-72” DarkStar and the very real SR-72 “Son of Blackbird”. They have almost identical planforms (silhouette as viewed from the top or bottom) back to the empennage where the trailing edge of the wing differs. That is the end of the similarities. DarkStar is manned, and achieves speed in excess of Mach 10 through a dual mode SCRAMJET. SR-72 is unmanned, and allegedly capable of Mach 6 using a dual mode RAMJET. Not as powerful as a SCRAMJET but definitely higher speed as a result of separating the two engines instead of building a combined hybrid like on SR-71. The final obvious and visible difference is the DarkStar has 2 vertical stabilators that are all moving like on SR-71, and are also canted inward. SR-72 Son of Blackbird has one large traditional vertical stabilizer/rudder. It’s easy to mistake one jet for another and the differences are like that of the F-15C to the F-15E.
Well, the Wright Brothers had many failures before success. I would not give up on this project. The engines could be moved forward which would change the torque/thrust location and possibly bring more stability to it. Examples are the B-1A in testing had close to the same issue until they move the engines forward. The CG calculator is yet another misguided brainchild that is not 100% always correct. It does not account for many aspects of building materials. Yes I do not feel the CG is correct in this scratch build design. I feel you can make it work. Dare to experiment and have fun doing it. At the very least give it more effort, you may end up with an award-winning design.
I appreciate your comment and insight. You know, I probably could’ve put the EDFs closer to the intake, but not by much. An inch at most. I would like to try again, but this project has taken WAY too much time both to complete and get out to the viewers (I’ve been working on it since June!) I might try again at some point in the future, but I have several projects that have had to be put on hold while I try to get DarkStar to work. And yeah, I guess the best CG calculator is real life testing, but I still believe the aircraft design is inherently unstable. Maybe if I got a gyro it’d be better.
@@AerospaceMatt I concur and also agree with Jeff in LA . The SR-71 BlackBird was a skunkworks bird as well and lets just say the Gen 1 of Hypersonic flight , Been out of the military for 15 years and still can not talk about what I know.
Isn’t Hypersonic Mach 5 plus? I thought the SR-71 could only go Mach 3.3. Wow, it’s cool that you know things that are [Redacted]. My grandpa worked for Boeing and did secret stuff that he couldn’t talk about either. All I know for sure is he worked on the Space Shuttle robotic arm.
Also, the thing I found fascinating about the film was that they tested DarkStar at the Mojave Desert, but in real life they would’ve tested it at Groom Lake.
It is possible I may have met your grandpa, There is many things that happens we are not allowed to discuss. The national security depends on the dedication of the men and women who serve past, present and beyond. Darkstar is but one of many projects that may or maynot be a reality. The B-2 bomber force was a huge surprise to our adversaries. Yet it is but a very small example of what our military is capable of. What will our next generation be able to do to keep our country safe?
I want to thank you for your service. It is my goal in life to become a full scale test pilot, and fly the next generation technology demonstrator. I would love to fly something at high altitude, "where no lark, or even eagle flew"
Hopefully China has the same experience when they attempt to copy.
You mean they haven’t already? Lol. I’m sure they have a flight stabilizer that they could put inside it though.
Sorry kid, either you do or you do not. No such thing as "try"...someone wise said that one time...
I know the quote. It DID fly (the first one with the partially deleted video) I think the stabilizers were too small as well as the thrust line being so far back and below the wing. Probably could’ve used a bit of nose weight as well.
tutorial pls
This one in the video didn’t fly too well. Definitely looking into making a new one with more stability. If that one works, then I’ll make a video about how to build one!